Lukas Renggli wrote:
>> Now, what's the great plan for 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8? It seems that things
>> evolve much faster than people catching up to them and I wonder how
>> practical that actually is. Having used 2.6 for majority of the project
>> and only recently switching to 2.7 I was able to provide feedback that
>> might have been useful. Now that main stream is way ahead in 2.8, I
>> can't help but feel that speed of progress in this case works against
>> it. No?
>> Not in my opinion. Feel free to stick with 2.7. I am running a couple
> of legacy applications that work great with Seaside 2.2. Other
> open-source projects have much tighter release cycles, Mozilla has a
> major release every couple of months.
>> Seaside development happens mostly (if not all) as unpaid work of
> volunteers. There are other forces that drive Seaside: the need for
> new features, the need for speed improvements, the need for simpler
> and cleaner code, personal interests in particular problems, etc.
>> The great plans were/are:
>> 2.6: ?
> 2.7: Deprecation.
> 2.8: Lower memory requirements, improve speed, improve extensibility,
> cleanup.
>> Lukas
>
I'm with Lukas on this. The problems people are seeing is that they are
effectively trying to run out of the development "CVS branch", if you
will. You will have instability, and have a hard time keeping up with
most any project if you did that. Try it with e.g. Mozilla.
Now people do commonly run out of the latest dev repository on many
projects because of a variety of reasons (e.g. need the latest fix, want
to be "bleeding edge", etc.) but they have to be ready to deal with
instability when they do this. No one would send a mail to the apache
list to tell them that the latest apache dev CVS tree is progressing to
fast. :)